Turnicidae (1 Viewer)

[Melanie]

Why are there are authors who claim that Turnix (varius) novaecaledoniae was described in 1893 though there is clearly evidence that it was described in 1889?

 

[Mike Earp]

Why are there are authors who claim that Turnix (varius) novaecaledoniae was described in 1893 though there is clearly evidence that it was described in 1889?

Would help to link to the OD and some of the authors who use the later date.

 

[mb1848]

OD: ser.6:v.1=no.1-4 (1889) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Dr. Peterson's take:
Turnix varius novaecaledoniae† Citation

• Often cited to 1893 and the CBBM, but the name clearly appears in 1889 in the Ibis.
• The Ibis article is somewhat ambiguous as to the authorship.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't believe a formal description of this species appears in the 1889 article.

 

[mb1848]

It is described well enough for 1889 and given a Latin scientific name in the Index p. 599. ser.6:v.1=no.1-4 (1889) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
In the Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum it says it is named in the index of the Ibis.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

It is described well enough for 1889 and given a Latin scientific name in the Index p. 599. ser.6:v.1=no.1-4 (1889) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

The name is given in the index but they are no mention indicating that it's a new species "sp. nov" and they are no diagnosis. 🤔

 

[Melanie]

James C. Greenway (Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World) and Joseph Forshaw (Quail, Buttonquail and Plains-wanderer in Australia and New Zealand) have only mentioned the 1893 description. It is also interesting to see that Turnix varius was formerly called Turnix varia.

 

[mb1848]

In text the author states "I have little doubt that this belongs to a distinct species" but does not name it; until the end of the year when the Index is printed the author does name it. Here is total description:
A male specimen of Turnix from New Caledonia is in the Tweeddale Collection and is closely allied to the present species, but differs in having most of the feathers of the rump, as well us those of the upper surface, almost entirely black, margined with whitish or buff. Itis also a smaller bird than

the male of T. varius, its wing being 3°3 instead of 3°5-3°6.

I have little doubt that this belongs to a distinct species ; but this cannot be ascertained until adult females have been procured. The author measured and compared the wings. What more is required in 1889?

 

[Melanie]

In the note of page 552 in the CBBM Ogilvie-Grant stated that the name Turnix novae caledoniae was published in Ibis. Vol 22 (1893) - Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum - Biodiversity Heritage Library

 

[mb1848]

The foundation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was not until 1895. Strickland's Code 1842, according to his Father-in-law Jardine (1866, p. 267) gave a fair summary of the acceptance of the ‘rules’ during the first twenty years in saying that ‘zoological nomenclature has not improved. Whether it is from the rules and recommendations not being sufficiently well known, or from an idea that no one has any right to interfere with or make rules for others, many gentlemen appear to cast them away, and do not recognise them at all, while others accept or reject justwhat pleases themselves’.

 

[Melanie]

Thanks for explaining the ICZN code. Maybe this is the reason for the confusion and discrepancy between the years 1889 and 1893.

 

[l_raty]

I guess one source of disagreement might be on whether or not the name in the index is linked objectively to the description. There is more on p. 474 than the description of this particular bird...